[From Rick Marken (940929.1500)]
Here is a copy of a private reply I sent to Chuck Tucker. Due to the long
delays on the net, Chuck sent me a private copy of his nice post (which I
presume went to the net) describing some of the tests he has his students do.
This is a copy of my private response to that post. Chuck suggested that I
put it on the net so here it is. Given the way net traffic is going, many
of you may see this before you see Chuck's post to which this is a response.
If so, I suggest waiting for his post before you read this; I think it will
make more sense in that order (if it makes any sense at all :-))
···
--------------------
SOME EXAMPLES OF "DISTURBANCE" STUDIES TAKEN FROM
SOCY 101 EXERCISES
This is just the kind of thing I would like to see posted to CSG-L. I think
it would be worth it to explicitly describe each of the following for each
of the tests you describe: 1) the variable that is being tested as a possibly
controlled variable 2) the possible values of this variable 3) the
disturbance to this variable 4) the expected effect of this disturbance if the
hypothetical controlled variable is not controlled and 5) the actual
effect of the disturbance on this variable. For example, in the first example
of you say:
--select certain words (the same ones all of the time) that another speaks
and "spell" them "out loud" after each time the word is spoken by the other.
Here is what I think it would be nice to report:
1) The hypothesized controlled variable: how often the subject hears one of
his spoken words spelled out loud by a listener.
2) Possible values of this variable: "never" to "often".
3) The disturbance: spelling out a particular word each time it is spoken by
the subject.
4) Effect of the disturbance if variable is not controlled: the subject will
hear the selected word spelled out each time it is spoken.
5) Actual effect of disturbance: Subject rarely hears the selected word
spelled out. [In this section you might mention how the subject was able to
prevent the disturbance from having the expected effect; different people
might achieve this result in different ways, even though they are controlling
the same variable; for example, some subjects may punch out the experiments
lights, preventing any more spelling out loud. Others may avoid saying the
"certain word" that is being spelled out; others may try to talk the
experimented out of doing the word repetition. Still others may not actually
try to prevent the repetition but may try things that keep them being heard
over the repetition -- like raising their voice; in this case, it's not the
repetition that is controlled but the interference from the noise of that
repetition]
Anyway, many good descriptions of each of these aspects of real life tests
like this will at least give people the idea of what PCT is about -- that
people (like the subject here) want the world (actually, their perceptions of
it, of course) to be in preferred (reference) states.
Best
Rick